set_warp_markers

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already flag destructive=true, non-idempotent, and non-read-only. The description adds behavior the annotations cannot convey: a failed write is never retried and may be partially applied, confirmation returns a dry-run report, and an external handler must be loaded. The partial-application warning is especially valuable for a destructive, non-idempotent write.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The purpose leads, followed by mapping convention, side effects, and the environmental requirement. Each sentence carries distinct information with no filler, though 'in the Remote Script' is somewhat implementation-flavored phrasing.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a destructive mutation tool with an output schema present, the description covers the key gaps: failure semantics, partial application, preview behavior, and the external dependency. Return values need not be explained since an output schema exists. Minor gaps remain around what exactly replace destroys, though the schema carries that.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents path, confirm, markers, and replace. The description adds only the mapping convention ('starts at seconds/beat zero'), which touches the markers parameter but provides no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Construct Live WarpMarker objects') and clarifies the resulting side effect ('This enables Warp'), which is more useful than a bare name restatement. It stops short of distinguishing itself from the obvious sibling get_warp_markers, but the write/read split is inferable from the verb.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no explicit when-to-use-vs-alternative guidance, but the confirmation workflow ('Confirmation previews the complete request') and the precondition that the warp_markers_set handler must be loaded imply how and when to invoke it safely. It never names get_warp_markers or other siblings as alternatives.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.